Brian Wolff wrote: The 2009 strategy proposal linked towards the end, of which the GSoC proposal is a limited subset, did not get any criticism after several high-profile opportunities. Both proposals are intended to be language- and keyword-neutral. It would be best if the initial bot were built and tested on some other wiki than the English Wikipedia, so the Bot Approvals Group will be able to get concrete answers to any questions they might have. The use of templates should be optional; one way to do that would be to allow the use of a mirroring namespace to hold the templates, instead of the primary namespace. But there is probably a better way. Thank you for something so interesting to think about. *> * *> *This in itself is a non-trivial problem (for a gsoc student anyways), It would be non-trivial for a large production dump, but for a small subset of articles in a given dump, there are deterministic algorithms which perform with sufficient accuracy to form the specified partial basis of a selection heuristic. Creating such a table is at worst O(N) in revisions, but there are ways to hash words with N-gram contexts so that moved and blanked text is more likely to be treated correctly than what raw diffs would lead people to believe might happen. This is equivalent to the general blame problem, and I look forward to explaining the history of the problem (see e.g., http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/talks-and-papers ) to show why the N-gram hash solution is best. *>> present them to one or more subscribed reviewers * Yes, and I want to store questions in GIFT format to allow follow-on integration with the Global Learning Xprize Meta-Team deliverables. Presentation of a GIFT question means converting it to a form instead of just displaying it in markup. The question pertaining to whether direct integration is a reasonable follow-on goal depends on the extent to which branching scenario interactive fiction role-play content, such as shown in http://www.capuano.biz/papers/EL_2014.pdf and http://talknicer.com/GLMORS_2014.pdf can be automatically created. I think it can be, and look forward to discussing the matter in detail with co-mentor volunteers. <http://talknicer.com/GLMORS_2014.pdf> On Thursday, February 12, 2015, James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Risker wrote: A strategy proposal which never garnered criticism after so many opportunities would seem to qualify as at least an emergent strategy within the meaning of the slide and narrative at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Kvj5vCaW0&t=19m30s Furthermore, the initial limited subtask would be much more difficult to evaluate as a strategy without a working prototype, including by the Bot Approvals Group which demands working code before making a final decision on implementation. Trying to second guess the BAG is presumptuous. Is it possible that supporting updates to out of date articles would not be part of any successful strategy for the Foundation? I have posted multiple series of statistics to wiki-research-l in the past several months proving that quality issues are transitioning from creating new content to maintaining old content, and will be happy to recapitulate them should anyone suggest that they think it could be. It will be made available to volunteers as a backlog list which community members may or may not choose to work on. The Foundation can't prescribe mandatory content improvement work without putting the safe harbor provisions in jeopardy. Volunteers will be attracted to working on such updates in proportion to the extent they see them as being a worthy use of their editing time. I have additional detailed plans for testing which I will be happy to discuss with interested co-mentors, because depending on available resources there could be a way to eliminate substantial duplication of effort. I have updated the synopses at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89416 Best regards, James Salsman _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

... it received a single "support" vote

... there's no basis to believe that this ... will actually identify inaccuracies in the text

... It would require tens of thousands of person-hours (if not more) to analyse the data, and not a single article would be improved.

... Your proposal requires massive time commitment from reviewers

... it doesn't even fix out-of-date information.

... There is no indication at all that there is any interest on the part of Wikipedians to review data identified in the manner you propose.

... there's no basis to believe that this project would have any effect on accuracy

Risker wrote: A strategy proposal which never garnered criticism after so many opportunities would seem to qualify as at least an emergent strategy within the meaning of the slide and narrative at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Kvj5vCaW0&t=19m30s Furthermore, the initial limited subtask would be much more difficult to evaluate as a strategy without a working prototype, including by the Bot Approvals Group which demands working code before making a final decision on implementation. Trying to second guess the BAG is presumptuous. Is it possible that supporting updates to out of date articles would not be part of any successful strategy for the Foundation? I have posted multiple series of statistics to wiki-research-l in the past several months proving that quality issues are transitioning from creating new content to maintaining old content, and will be happy to recapitulate them should anyone suggest that they think it could be. It will be made available to volunteers as a backlog list which community members may or may not choose to work on. The Foundation can't prescribe mandatory content improvement work without putting the safe harbor provisions in jeopardy. Volunteers will be attracted to working on such updates in proportion to the extent they see them as being a worthy use of their editing time. I have additional detailed plans for testing which I will be happy to discuss with interested co-mentors, because depending on available resources there could be a way to eliminate substantial duplication of effort. I have updated the synopses at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89416 Best regards, James Salsman >> I invite review of this preliminary proposal for a Google Summer of >> Code project: >> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review >> >> If you would like to co-mentor this project, please sign up. I've been >> a GSoC mentor every year since 2010, and successfully mentored two >> students in 2012 resulting in work which has become academically >> relevant, including in languages which I can not read, i.e., >> http://talknicer.com/turkish-tablet.pdf .) I am most interested in >> co-mentors at the WMF or Wiki Education Foundation involved with >> engineering, design, or education.